Uzi deserves a go. So he has trouble against the moving ball? Everyone has trouble against the moving ball. That's why bowlers try to make it move ffs.

Edit: The alternative would be Watson opening instead of Cowan. Clarke to bowl him into the ground in the hope he might miss a few Tests. Would also sub out Lyon for Faulkner if conditions merit, which would reinforce our batting some more. If Harris is batting at 11, you've got a pretty gun tail.

The best argument for Watson playing (even though I don't think he should) is that he's our best reverse-swinger by a fair way. Obviously his batting is much more important (and inferior to Cowan's and Smith's atm), but it could be crucial in a clutch situation.

Lehmann needs to sort out the Twatto/Clarke divide immediately. A beer summit or forcible partnering on The Block, I don't care. They have differences to settle and that will be the fulcrum of Lehmann's man-management skills - and ultimately the team's success.

Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 26-06-2013 at 05:11 AM.

"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

Surprised that everyone seems to be including Hughes in the side. Honestly from what I've seen of him (which being a kiwi, was mostly his giving Guptill catching practice) I wouldn't have him in the same postcode as Jimmy Anderson for his own safety. Does no-one think Wade might score more runs than Hughes playing as a batsman?

Have never seen Bird bowl at all, but the comments on here intrigue me. I seem to recall similar things being expressed about Copeland - what happened there?

I agree abt Hughes. I want him at 4 atleast. Bird has atleast 25 ks on Copeland and looks dangerous. Kind of thinking of going with a Patto, Sids and Bird attack. I'm conserving Harris and considering switching him with Patto sometime in the series as a way to get both through 5 tests. Though Invers said there wont be rotation so maybe I'd hold Harris back for the inevitable injury.

Surprised that everyone seems to be including Hughes in the side. Honestly from what I've seen of him (which being a kiwi, was mostly his giving Guptill catching practice) I wouldn't have him in the same postcode as Jimmy Anderson for his own safety. Does no-one think Wade might score more runs than Hughes playing as a batsman?

Have never seen Bird bowl at all, but the comments on here intrigue me. I seem to recall similar things being expressed about Copeland - what happened there?

Surprised that everyone seems to be including Hughes in the side. Honestly from what I've seen of him (which being a kiwi, was mostly his giving Guptill catching practice) I wouldn't have him in the same postcode as Jimmy Anderson for his own safety. Does no-one think Wade might score more runs than Hughes playing as a batsman?

Have never seen Bird bowl at all, but the comments on here intrigue me. I seem to recall similar things being expressed about Copeland - what happened there?

Yeah Hughes didn't make my team but with Warner currently suspended I guess many people are picking him reluctantly. My reason for excluding Hughes is that I've seen nothing at all from him to suggest that he has improved since being shielded against South Africa late last year when Quiney played. I guess a couple of good innings in these county matches could be important for him.

Hughes had a good domestic season, albeit at Roadilade, and went OK against Sri Lanka. He's deserving of a go IMO. Not like Khawaja has been setting the world alight since they both got dropped from the side that played New Zealand in 2011. Khawaja has his own technical issues as well.

The warm up games will be an important factor though. Hope he goes well.

Hughes had a good domestic season, albeit at Roadilade, and went OK against Sri Lanka. He's deserving of a go IMO. Not like Khawaja has been setting the world alight since they both got dropped from the side that played New Zealand in 2011. Khawaja has his own technical issues as well.

The warm up games will be an important factor though. Hope he goes well.

Phil Hughes is one of the best batsman in Australia against domestic bowlers and attacks like Sri Lanka in Australian conditions. At 24 years of age and having now played 24 Test matches, he needs to show his ability against good bowling attacks on the International stage.

Hughes only made one score of 50+ actually on AO, though. Scored most of his runs last season in some really difficult circumstances away from home.

That said, he just seems to be one of those blokes who straddles the line of being Test standard, like the club stalwart playing 1sts who's having a lean run but dropping him back to 2nds is pointless because he'll go and score a run-a-ball double and force you to pick him again. Just can't grok the pressure of playing close to his limits because it's always come easy.

Phil Hughes is one of the best batsman in Australia against domestic bowlers and attacks like Sri Lanka in Australian conditions. At 24 years of age and having now played 24 Test matches, he needs to show his ability against good bowling attacks on the International stage.

So lets give him a proper go to show it this time then. He's played seven tests since his recall, four of which were in conditions that couldn't be more foreign to the conditions he'll get in England. I wasn't completely convinced about his recall, because I felt he probably needed a bit longer to work on his game before getting another go, but now that he's been given one, you can't just bin him against straight away.

So lets give him a proper go to show it this time then. He's played seven tests since his recall, four of which were in conditions that couldn't be more foreign to the conditions he'll get in England. I wasn't completely convinced about his recall, because I felt he probably needed a bit longer to work on his game before getting another go, but now that he's been given one, you can't just bin him against straight away.

I think he will probably play when you consider what has happened to Warner and the fact that Smith wasn't in the original squad.

I definitely hope he does well in the Tests if/when picked, but just curious how many more non performing games you'd give him so he has had a proper chance?

Obviously it depends what you class as non performing and the other factors such as how the team as a whole are performing etc. I'd probably want to give him at least the series, and if he averages above 30, then the start of the one in Australia pending on Shield performances in October and early November. Lower than 30 and he'd have to go. If he does't get a 50 plus score in the first three tests of this series, he'd probably have to go, unless he wasn't alone in that regard, but I would be really keen to give him a decent go, especially as I don't rate the alternatives that highly.

How long to give Hughes is interesting if you think about how Watson manages to keep getting picked. I imagine Uzi and Hughes will need runs to keep themselves in the team past the 2nd test. Especially if we lose games the calls will come for Warner and Smith.